Glen,
CIL below.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 03/13/2006 12:19:12 PM:
>
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> > I would put this in the same class as "where do SOAP mU
> > faults get delivered". I believe that that should be a
> > function of the binding, not of WS-A because it is pretty
> > clear to me that in the face of a SOAP mU (or
> > VersionMismatch) fault, that WS-A processing cannot be
> > presumed to have been performed (per the SOAP1.2 spec anyway).
>
> As per usual I'll request that we be crystal-clear when talking about
> any overused word like "binding"... you mean "SOAP protocol binding",
> right? :)
correctamundo
>
> > Thus, I think that an endpoint that includes a non-anonymous
> > [fault to] endpoint SHOULD expect that it MAY receive SOAP
> > faults in a manner defined as the default for the relevant
> > SOAP binding. In the case of the SOAP Req/Resp MEP and SOAP
> > HTTP binding, that would be the anonymous endpoint.
>
> Agreed, the question is just how exactly we say that in our specs in
> such a way as to make the behavior clear for present and future cases.
>
> > IMO, if a SOAP message contains WS-A headers that are
> > inconsistent with the spec in any way that the generated
> > fault SHOULD be sent to the endpoint identified by the
> > relevant SOAP MEP/binding.
>
> This I'm not sure I agree with. If I send you a single, valid,
> non-anonymous FaultTo header, and duplicate ReplyTo headers (or any
> other WSA screwup), wouldn't you want the fault on the FaultTo EPR? I
Possibly, but what if the fault is generated *before* the [fault to] is
parsed/processed? Are you suggesting that if a fault is generated that
processing
of the WS-A headers is to continue? That seems a little odd to me. If
you have an endpoint that is sending garbage in regards to [reply
endpoint],
what expectation would you have that the remaining MAPs are coherent? I'd
just as soon consider the whole lot as tainted and send the fault as if
WS-A were not being used.
> suppose actually you need a valid FaultTo and also a valid MessageID for
> correlation in that case, though - but assuming those, wouldn't you send
> other faults to FaultTo?
I'm not convinced. However, the case I was making, possibly poorly, is
that
no matter what [fault to] says, that the sender of a (request) message
MUST
be prepared to receive a fault as if WS-A were not in use.
>
> If we DO mean to say that "any WSA screwup always ignores <FaultTo>" we
> definitely have to make some changes. Regardless we need to be crisper
> on this.
Agreed, I think. Clarity is always a "Good Thing(tm)".
>
> Thanks,
> --Glen
>